Style Weekly’sEdwin Slipek Jr. this week takes a look at West Broad’s Iron House Place and The Reserve on 25th Street, calling both “excellent lessons in how to introduce bold and contemporary architecture to historic sectors.” Speaking of the award-winning hillside condos, Slipek says:

… the glory of this building is its pair of monitors â€” each with a slightly curved roof that pushes beyond the traditional roofline. These add a delightful and unexpected visual exclamation point. And they play off a long tradition of tower-like projections in Richmondâ€™s industrial buildings.

well, speaking as someone from the architecture field, i quite enjoy this building’s “discussion” with it’s neighboring context. It has a terrific combination of new and old language, just as (i believe) renovations within historic areas should…

As a matter of fact, Mr. Slipek has written about the “baked potato/flying saucer” building on West Broad, and as I recall he agrees (even with me) that it’s a pretty terrific example of ’60’s modern architecture.

You might not agree with every critique Ed Slipek writes, but he’s a great supporter of historic preservation in urban neighborhoods. He’s written extensively on the subject of MCV West Hospital (and how it should be preserved) and railed against the State and it’s obsession with tearing down historic structures along Broad Street in Downtown Richmond.

I love to read Ed’s articles, because to a non-architect like myself, he helps me understand the nuances of great buildings.

Ed defends historic preservation in urban areas…give em a break on the Reserve if you don’t agree with him on this one building.

what i don’t like is the use of concrete cinder block as a choice for exterior facade. it looks like the developer went cheap and didn’t want to pony up for more metal. i don’t wish for every historic rehab to look alike, i wish for them all to look good, just a matter of personal opinion. don’t get your panties in a bunch

I live around the corner. It took me a little while to get used to it…but I think overall I was just so happy when the construction was finally done that I didn’t care what was there, to tell you the truth!

Since that part of 25th street is mixed use, I think it blends well enough. On a residential street the design wouldn’t be appropriate, but I think it’s okay where it is. And I would also add, it’s a damned sight better than what was there before.

I really like the Reserve, and don’t find the CMU (concrete masonry unit, aka cinderblock) objectionable. Like the buildings throughout greater Church Hill that contribute to their respective state and local historic districts, the Reserve incorporates common building materials, and is a reflection of the architectural ideas of its time.

This building is just another slight variation of every other eyesore plaguing Richmond suburbia and enticing those with no aesthetic sense who seek a false idyllic lifestyle and cookie-cutter monotony. The only difference is that it’s within the city limits and it’s ruining a beautiful neighborhood. Why does every new residential structure have to be built to such poor standards? Will we ever return to an appreciation of quality? People would want to live there, with so many other wonderful choices? I will never understand.

Luke, please expand on your statement regarding “cookie-cutter monotony”. How does this structure copy other buildings? I find the mixture of building materials (i.e. CMU and corrugated metal) refreshing in an area where brick is tiredly overused in many areas of the city, state and eastern US as a way to show a pretense of wealth. The use of the materials at The Reserve shows a commitment to quality construction. I do not feel towards any building sheathed in vinyl siding anywhere close to what I feel towards this building. If you really want to see an area where there are quality contemporary houses in a historic area, look in the Philadelphia area. There is a wide variety of looks there, from the original houses to infill houses that utilize exotic building materials that while they do not have any relation to the original fabric of the city bring an overwhelming quality that complements the neighborhood. If that is where Church Hill is heading, I’m for it. It will fit in quite well with The Reserve.

kathryn b. the “cookie cutter” likely comes from what is known as “copy-tecture” copy the trends featured in architecture-building construction magazines. you can see this reserve building in every current magazine related to the building trade. the use of brick is not a pretense of wealth, just a recognition that it is a pleasing and durable product that predates philadelphia. i have been to philly. it smells bad. i dont know why anyone would want to live there or copy what you call the exotic infill

“in an area where brick is tiredly overused in many areas of the city, state and eastern US as a way to show a pretense of wealth.”
I believe brick was mainly used because of the clay soil, not because of a pretense of wealth.

“Copy-techture” it may be, but then the rest of Church Hill falls in the same category, though most of the houses were built over 100 years ago. The use of brick really is a pretense in that brick walls were originally built 2 to 3 widths thick to support the house. Nowadays it’s too expensive, so to cut on costs it’s built with a cavity wall/stud backup system. Just like a vinyl clad house, only more money. And yet, if one wants to impress, one builds with brick. Especially on the front side of the house. Magniloquent. And yes, Philly does have its bad side. That’s why I live in Church Hill, Virginia. I do remember some good points, though, and looking at the different styles of houses on my way to and from work really made me appreciate the strengths that could be found in having contemporary architecture alongside historic.